Is it better to consider oneself an ethnic national of the state or of the tribe? Does it matter whether a nation-state has been absorbed within the machinations of another tribe, or should a person rely on what he is called by others? Many examples of "states within states" exist: Brittany, Gascony, Lorraine, Lombardy, Sicily, Wales, England, Scotland, Catalonia, Bavaria, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Normandy, Flanders, Friesland and Wallonia etc. There happen to be even "smaller" polities based upon states but no longer have any measure of sovereignty such as Cornwall, Cumberland, Ulster, Leinster, Essex, Sussex, Northumberland, Surrey, Munster, Connacht, Yorkshire, East Anglia etc. I'm speaking on officially organised areas and not merely regions of cultural influence, because that tends to be economic. What is a barrier to accepting actual ethnic constituents, besides government loyalty on a higher scale? Consider how many feel about EU control in comparison to perhaps being Basque and partitioned between France and Spain? Is it in our best interests, to lie to ourselves and our neighbours? Who does this help, at all?

Since we all strive for White unity, I believe that this is an important subject to sort out before a conclusion can be reached about a whole White Race. Consider how some tribes who occupy European soil may be geographically European, but foreign in everything else. I have seen slitty eyed "Whites" and negrescent "Whites" but this doesn't seem to phase enough people to acknowledge the true origins of people who we mean to include within our sphere. Sometimes, this can go to extremes for inclusionism. I myself prefer to include lands that are European, but not tolerate miscgenated people who've made it to Europe centuries ago. The Balkan problem is one recent case in point of why such ridiculous accomodations are needless to our cause. Anybody who disagrees with me, I will find as mocking the White Nation and no better than the stereotypical multiracialists we often denounce here. I will not delineate specifics of who I mean in this discussion, for fear of being banned. I do encourage the survival of true Whites and cutting the roots of deceptive Hippyism. There are historical reasons why certain peoples do not belong in the White crowd, but I mince no feelings about them.

I understand that some so-called White Nationalists are afraid of splintering the White cause by leaving certain others out of the project. Others, want to be a part of the mission, because they are deluded that it is their cause as well. Of course, many suicidally encourage this out of fear of them becoming the enemy. They fear a loss of manpower to the movement, which I compare to the corporate overseas hiring of low income mud races for our comfortable lives. I consider these methods to be unacceptable and hypocritical to the first and foremost interest of White Nationalism. I am speaking of the beacon of light that is the European race, at its very heart. I have no love for mixed peoples and those that miscgenate with those mixed, including their Hippy "values". Certainly, this racial reality is expressed in degrees of associated inheritance. I swear, that if this topic is censored that I will abandon Stormfront as an attention-grabbing festival. Many here are kept from assessing, just "who is White"? Blurring the edges will never help our cause. I feel sorry for those who compromise their professed ethics of racial purity by endorsing the exact opposite. I have no time for games, so deliver me none.

The first paragraph was very powerful. As for who is White: looks White, acts White, talks White and fights White, then it surely is White. You can call that my Rule of Duck if you like.

I think, that it has to do with foreign recognition. For instance, people's sovereignty is often considered dependent on whether another country sets up diplomatic relations with the polity in question.
12